From ragnarok@pobox.com Tue Sep 16 14:13:06 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 16 Sep 2003 14:13:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.intrex.net ([209.42.192.250]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19zN82-0002k3-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 16 Sep 2003 14:12:54 -0700 Received: from craig [209.42.212.114] by smtp.intrex.net (SMTPD32-7.13) id ACBB16ED0294; Tue, 16 Sep 2003 17:12:27 -0400 From: "Craig" To: Subject: [lojban] Re: Conservative, *active* BPFK commissioners needed. Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 17:12:22 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <20030916190644.GY26715@digitalkingdom.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-Declude-Sender: ragnarok@pobox.com [209.42.212.114] X-archive-position: 6187 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: ragnarok@pobox.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list >The BPFK (see http://www.lojban.org/llg/baseline.html) is trying to >represent all parts of the Lojban community. >Its deliberations are currently at an impasse, largely because there >are no active comissioners who are also true Baseline Conservatives >(i.e. people who believe that the baseline should be absolutely >inviolate). >Some such people stepping up to the plate would be a Very Good >Thing. I take issue with this on two counts. First of all, it is clear to all concerned that the baseline as it stands must be altered; that's what the community voted for in approving the BPFK mandate. I have no problem with the view that whatever the BPFK decides on ought to remain inviolate, in fact I'm starting to come around to that way of thinking myself, but anyone who believes that the BPFK should not exist is deluding themself and would probably be counterproductive as a member. Second, I think the fact that both conservative and revisionist members are active is precisely the reason why we aren't moving so fast. If everyone were a naturalist, we'd have consensus-minus-one for several issues at this point. This isn't a bad thing; we revisionists do need to be reined in a bit. I'd say the real way to end the impasse is for people on both sides to make concessions on some issues. For instance, I would dearly love to see ka'enai become official, but I would give it up in a heartbeat if doing so meant that the more actively harmful issues were resolved prior to the heat death of the universe. -- .kreig.daniyl. "Let's vote on how to vote on how to vote!" -Adam Raizen ragnarok@pobox.com teucer@bnomic.org